Frankly, it is difficult to know where to start, how to even begin addressing the distortions of Christianity which you present as its core tenets, or to believe that given your ideological convictions that anything I say will be persuasive. Many in the Eastern Orthodox blogosphere have openly wondered how one of you could have been welcomed into Orthodoxy, if your priest knew of your beliefs before your Chrismation, and whether you should be permitted to continue as a communicant in the Orthodox church. The irony is, we have canons forbidding many things. Racism is not one of them.

So, let me start by welcoming you into the home I love. As untenable as I find your beliefs about “Faith, Family and Folk,” this is not a reason to reject your presence in my community. The truth is, I simply don’t believe that we can revoke a baptism which is God’s, and I have yet to see excommunication be an effective tool for healing and restoration. Rather, it is participation in the eucharist, the “medicine of immortality”1 which enables those of us who have been “baptized into Christ to put on Christ” (Gal 3.27), a refrain you have undoubtedly heard many times, perhaps even in various languages, during this Paschal season. It is, of course, meant to recall the fruit of putting on Christ, that in Christ “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). My prayer is that you can experience the healing offered by God by eating at our shared table.

Also, I want to thank you. The ease with which you claim Orthodox theological support for your expression of White Nationalism reveals, with few exceptions, a lacuna of serious Orthodox thought on race, nationalism and democracy. Any lacuna is an opportunity to repent, and repentance is the core of the Christian life. Perhaps your voice will allow our leaders both here and abroad far more seriously the consequences of their divided witness and constant flirtations with phyletism, or what you repeatedly affirm as “racism.”

The truth is, we have made it easy for you to clothe your ideology in Orthodoxy. While you seem to conflate monarchical movements with racial purity, there is no doubt that historically, Russian Orthodoxy offers you abundant confirmation of your beliefs. You have already discovered the Black Hundreds and the canonization of a supporter, John of Kronstadt. The motto of their hero, Tsar Nicholas I, [Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality] is reflected in your repetition of Faith, Family and Folk. You have no intellectual qualms in claiming their support for your campaign to save Western civilization despite the fact that these movements saw themselves in opposition to ‘the West.’ You affirm the ‘blessing’ of the Greek neo-Nazi party, “Golden Dawn” (though you fail to note an episcopal condemnation of the party). Perhaps you have latched on to the virulent anti-semitism which permeates our Lenten hymns, and you have affirmed the bizarre homophobic and anti-semitic rantings of the repudiatedNathanael Kapner. Your homophobia mirrors the rhetoric found all to easily among Orthodox clergy and laity (unfortunately echoed in the complicit silence of those who privately disagree). Perhaps the perceived “masculinity” of Orthodoxy appeals to your particular take on traditional “family values.”

While these examples may seem extreme to many North American Orthodox, our own relationship with racism is checkered. Every January the famous Life magazine image of Abp. Iakovos (GOA) marching with MLK in Selma appears on all over the web, but it is rarely mentioned that his fellow Orthodox repudiated his actions: when he “appeared for scheduled events at his next stop, and he found himself alone in a Charleston hotel room..” Our love of our “Folk” as you call national, ethnic and racial groups, rarely takes the form of overt racism where we explicitly deny another “Folk” political and economic power. Rather, we snipe at one another over what constitutes appropriate music in church, unison, melismatic chant or polyphonic harmonies (the introduction of which is often seen as a negative encroachment of the West you so vociferously defend).2 As still-partially-immigrant churches, we struggle with what language to use, and how to accommodate multiple generations of increasingly ‘hyphenated’ Americans, and to whom we will be neighbor. I recall a perfectly vibrant ministry to men and women transitioning out of homelessness that was shut down because “we really should be focusing on our [ethnic group] shut-ins.” The ambivalence directed by our Patriarchs towards Orthodoxy in the Western Hemisphere hardly masks both the political gamesmanship underlying rival jurisdictional claims to Orthodoxy in America.

This checkered past, this ecclesial and episcopal ambivalence, reveals that we have responded to the challenge of diversity (which you claim “simply means white genocide”) in a manner very similar to what you advocate, by separation. The truth is, separation is easier. We do not gravitate towards ethnically comfortable parishes because we believe that separation is necessarily “more productive as you claim,” but certainly because it is more comfortable, easier, and sometimes safer. For immigrants coming to a new land, especially immigrants of color, seen as competition for a limited labor-pool by yours (and my) white immigrant ancestors, gathering in familiar surroundings is essential. Sometimes, staying with your folk is a matter of safety, just as you claim. “Loving one’s people” which appears to be synonymous with racism, “is natural.” Oddly enough, I agree: it is always easier to love your own. Even Jesus acknowledges this, with a twist of course.

Yet I want to be clear that our ongoing struggle with phyletism leads to associations which allow you to imagine something quite other than what we mean by our separation:

As an Orthodox Christian I believe in the separation of races into ethnically based Church’s [sic]. That is why even in Orthodoxy there is for instance a Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, etc Orthodox Church. Regional and racial identity is a fundamental principle of Christianity, must to the dismay of Leftists. I believe black Christians should be in their black Church’s, with black priests, having black kids, going to black Christian schools, etc.

“Orthodox Mike” engages in one of the more bizarre Trinitarian theologies I have encountered, likening Father, Son and Spirit to Body, Mind and Soul (a quite patristic analogy), to “Faith, Biology, and Culture,” claiming that an attack on “the People”, the Folk, is tantamount to the heresy of attacking the Trinity (I thought that the misuse of Trinitarian doctrine to justify hierarchical sexism was egregious, but at least the men of our church aren’t actually wanting to kill the women. In light of this, a small, but real, comfort).

I cannot even imagine, at least not without horror, how you think this will play out among your new Orthodox sisters and brothers. Perhaps your parish home in Bloomington, Indiana is entirely white, providing you the comfort of a racially monotone worship experience. But you are a member of an Arab jurisdiction (the AOA), whose racial group is consistently profiled. Your Greek sisters and brothers often refer to themselves as non-white (though from the perspective of race as a form of power and influence, they are doing quite well). The first Orthodox churches in North America were planted by Russians among the Aleut, Alutiiq, Tlingit and Yup’ik peoples, and their languages are actively used in Orthodox services today. Tell me, in your vision for the future, do you just want them all to go “home”, wherever that now is? Will you implement your plan of one-to-one killing, to “just do it and get it over with”?3

There are of course, saints who belie your beliefs, The Aleut St. Jacob Netsvetov who is remembered for his service to the many “folk” of Alaska, the Tlingit, Yup’ik, learning languages new languages and planting churches. The Arab St. Rapheal Hawaweeney of Brooklyn, who served churches of all ethnic stripes all across North America in an effort to ensure that Orthodox immigrants could worship within their tradition at least occasionally. St. Maria Skobtsova, who lost her freedom and eventually life protecting Jews from the very fascism you advocate. The Four Martyrs of Paris, Mother Maria Skobtsova, and Ilya, Yuri and Dimitry. An icon commissioned by Fr. Michael Plekon and painted by John Reves Or perhaps Fr. Dimitry Klepenin whose was interviewed upon imprisonment for his actions:

Hoffman: If we release you, will you give an undertaking never again to aid Jews?
Klepinin: I can say no such thing. I am a Christian and must act as I must.
Hoffman (striking Klepinin across the face): Jew lover! How dare you talk of helping those swine as being a Christian duty!
Klepinin (recovering his balance, held up the cross from his cassock): Do you know this Jew?

It is the witness of saints such as these that undergirds the recent comment of the Patriarch Bartholomew:

The concept of the nation cannot become a determining factor of Church life or an axis of Church organization…Whenever an Orthodox church succumbs to nationalist rhetoric and lends support to racial tendencies, it loses sight of the authentic theological principles and gives in to a fallen mindset, totally alien to the core of Orthodoxy.

The problem is that there is no easy solution to this predicament. Separation is often easier, and sometimes, the only possibility of safety. My WIT colleague has warned that “the framework of reconciliation, even when it attempts to speak about justice, values the confession and the future to come above the present.” We need to acknowledge our mixed and ambivalent present. Therefore, I stand by my welcome to you and your folk. But I must confess, my first instinct was separation: I wanted you out of my church. Your presence among us may be dangerous. You celebrated Bright Monday with a protest, as is your right as an American citizen. But this protest resulted in a beating. Tell me, will you beat an Orthodox Christian who objects to your racism? Will you beat any Christian who objects to your racism?

Perhaps your ecclesial participation must be monitored to ensure the safety of your sisters and brothers, some of whom may be of color, who may be gay, who may be the descendants of Jews. Perhaps you must never be left alone with those who do not share your views, in the same way a convicted child molester can participate in a community but should always be accompanied by an adult and should never be allowed to directly interact with children in any capacity, supervised or otherwise. It is one thing to share a meal in which we are reminded that our bodies are connected in and through the body of a Jewish man borne of a Jewish woman, and raised in a non-‘traditional’ family. We share this meal in the hope that as we take in Christ we put on Christ, and in so doing, become Christ to one another. But sharing a meal does not mean we can allow you to speak publicly unchecked, waving your Orthodox cross and carrying your Orthodox Bible (look closely at the Nightline videos) as you spew bad news for all but whomever you define as your “Folk.”

Indeed, you should be asked privately by your priest and publicly by Orthodox laity and clergy every day: what does your commitment to put on Christ mean towards your fellow Christian? To all human beings made in the image of God? Will you use a cross to beat someone different than you, or will you allow yourself to be hung on it by offering your body as a substitute for the least, perhaps at the hands of the very fascists with whom you now identify?4

Lest Orthodox read into this a support for substitutionary atonement, let me be clear: we offer our bodies not as a substitute for the reception of God’s just judicial wrath, but to take the place of our neighbor. Think Mother Maria, not Anselm. ↩

Post navigation

17 thoughts

A quick comment on ‘phyletism’ which may be worthy of a post in itself:

The term phyletism was coined in 1872 at local Orthodox Synod which was pan-Orthodox in attendance. The meeting was prompted by the creation of a separate bishopric by the Bulgarian community of then Constantinople for parishes only open to Bulgarians.

On 10 August 1872 the Synod issued an official condemnation of ecclesiastical racism, or “ethno-phyletism,” as well as its theological argumentation:

We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which “support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.”

I frankly neglected to mention this in my post (It is in my notes!). However, I am ambivalent since many seem to think that this condemnation is enough. Yet phyletism is alive and well and ethno-specific parishes are openly defended by current Patriarchs. In reality, this is probably THE issue that will either make or break the Synod which will be convened in 2016.

Steve, in posting your comment, I lost the link to the PDF. If you can please add, I would like to read it. And FYI: this is not a self hosted WP blog. It looks like it didn’t like the user you were logged in as. Odd.

Let me get this straight Constantinople condemned the Bulgarians for having there own ethnic church in Constantinople.

Meanwhile she has insisted on foisting her Hellenism throughout the non-Hellenic world? She even went so far as forcing her Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on Antioch who had it’s own Liturgy (the Liturgy of St.Mark of Alexandria which was suppressed in the 13th century by Patriarch Theodore IV Balsamon).

NO, I am not quite sure what you want me to explain. I have never heard of the Liturgy of St. Mark, but then I am not a liturgist. As for the inconsistency between a debatably pan-Orthodox synod condemning phyletism while having a history of engaging in it, well, that is sort of my point. Orthodoxy struggles with the very thing we consider a heresy, and our continued struggle which has more to do with power and influence than the good news of Christ. the consequence is that it makes us appear inviting to those with extreme beliefs.

As an African Orthodox young man,“I have decided to stick to love…Hate is too great a burden to bear.” MLK. Christ is Risen…..”, but the man is right. This is world we live and these are the demands.

“There are many yardsticks by which men measure success. Among them are: wealth, power, position, prestige, etc. These are all indicators of worldly success. However, measuring your spiritual success and your success as a Christian is a little more difficult. Often, there is little tangible, visible evidence, which you can put your hands on to prove you are living a successful Christian life. Generally, success for the believer is more internal that external. What I mean by that is this, the small amount of external evidence we produce is the result of much internal activity in our hearts and lives. That is why it is difficult for God’s children, who live in a materialistic world, to gauge their success in their walk with God”. By Alan Carr

Maria Gwyn McDowell

Maria Gwyn McDowell was raised in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and is now a priest at St. Philip the Deacon Episcopal Church, a teacher, and a scholar. She is committed to helping create compassionate and just communities of practice called to work with God in the world. She loves nothing more than standing with people at the crossroads of understanding and practice. She received her PhD in Theological Ethics from Boston College and writes on gender, sexuality, and women in the church.
She is now, and will forever remain, a fervent heckler of all teams that oppose the Portland Thorns Football Club.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to the individual author and WIT with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.